So, does Fiji have some way around the capacity problem?
Clearly Tonga's loss-less compression is not it.
(Assuming the first Fiji release has only 4GB VRAM)
Are people trying to say that compression happens before the assets are allocated?
With the way color compression works on Tonga (delta color compression), you'd still need the whole asset in VRAM... The color compression only helps bandwidth, you still need the capacity.
So, does Fiji have some way around the capacity problem?
Clearly Tonga's loss-less compression is not it.
(Assuming the first Fiji release has only 4GB VRAM)
So based on an unknown AMD compression that you know nothing about, up to and including it's existence, and unknown DX12 you have surmised that 4GB is adequate.
Talk about a logic fail. You'll have to do better than that to convince anyone who isn't trying to delude themselves.
I didn't say VRAM = System ram, I said performance will tank if you need more than you have of either one and bandwidth does not make up for capacity. If you think this is a false statement then you need to do some more research.
I did, and responded. B-Riz post was completely ridiculous. "I don't know anything about AMD's compression or DX12 so that must make 4GB adequate" is essentially what he said. You referencing a post like that as if to say he made a good point makes this one equally ridiculous.
iiiankiii's post had more merit, but still doesn't address my concerns.
I did, and responded. B-Riz post was completely ridiculous. "I don't know anything about AMD's compression or DX12 so that must make 4GB adequate" is essentially what he said. You referencing a post like that as if to say he made a good point makes this one equally ridiculous.
iiiankiii's post had more merit, but still doesn't address my concerns.
The logic fail here is not understanding that adding memory is the easiest way to get out of writing memory efficient code.
Stop being lame and asking that everything be spelled out; I would think that someone with a nice signature PC knows a little bit more about the history of computing...
You are stuck in the mindset that every generation *needs* more memory.
Well, maybe the game companies are just as guilty as the video card companies? And have been lazy about developing good code and doing more with less?
Maybe, the behind the scenes software is getting better and 4GB is physically plenty to do what is needed to do for non-VR applications? (For the next few years, until 6GB is *maybe* needed)
We all know you can't keep adding 2GB - 4GB every generation, just because.
I'm confused as to why anyone would buy this in stock form right now. (unless SLI, but why not wait for CLC?)
This card has good (really good) OC potential, and the better performers will not be using the stock cooler.
I'm confused as to why anyone would buy this in stock form right now. (unless SLI, but why not wait for CLC?)
This card has good (really good) OC potential, and the better performers will not be using the stock cooler.
I really hope the Fury is not 4GB of HBM. Anything less than 6GB is not acceptable considering console use 6GB of VRAM.
I really hope the Fury is not 4GB of HBM. Anything less than 6GB is not acceptable considering console use 6GB of VRAM.
Aren't the consoles shared memory?
I'm not sure, all I hear is console use 6GB of VRAM so since we are getting so many console port in the near future, it would make sense to have at least a 6GB Vram gpu.
As was imminently predictable, suddenly "4GB" is the only talking point
Consoles have between 4.5 and 5.5GB of memory for games, while the rest is reserved for OS and whatever else functions there is outside of the game. This memory is shared between "vram" and system style memory.
So if a game uses 2½GB for gamedata then you may only have 2GB "vram".
But 3.5gb is enough! I mean its the full 4gb anyway when you need it.
Aren't the consoles shared memory?
Yes, it's shared, but the PS4 has a total of 8GB some people say 6GB is available for the game while others are saying it's 4.5-5GB. Either way you look at it, it's more than 4GB which is one reason why 4GB is a major point of contention, especially for a top end part.
I was just thinking about how hilarious it is that 3.5gb was fine a few months ago when the 970 issue came out but now anything less than 6gb is not only not future proof, but not good enough right now!
That's what I thought.
I was just thinking about how hilarious it is that 3.5gb was fine a few months ago when the 970 issue came out but now anything less than 6gb is not only not future proof, but not good enough right now!
Either way, really impressive card from NVidia. I would have liked the pricing to be lower, but that's the name of the game right now.
No, you're missing a part of this. 4.5-5gb is what is leftover after the OS and hypervisor. The 5gb is what is remaining for the game assets and VRAM.
I'm not missing it, I get it. VRAM is by far going to take the greater chunk and I expect a high end video card that costs more than an entire console to have more vram than a console. Not equal to, and certainly not less. I think that's the point you're missing.